PAM. 

MISC. 


Pamphlet  No.  49 
Series  1927-28 
February,  1928 


The  Press 

Its  Responsibility  In  International  Relations 

DISCUSSED  BY 

Willis  J.  Abbot 
Silas  Bent 

and 

Moses  Koenigsberg 


A STENOGRAPHIC  REPORT  OF  THE 

103rd  New  York  Luncheon  Discussion 
January  21,  1928 
of  the 

Foreign  Policy  Association 

national  headquarters 
Eighteen  East  Forty-First  Street 
New  York  City 


Speakers 


WILLIS  J.  ABBOT 

Editor,  Christian  Science  Monitor;  recently  returned  from  making  a survey 
of  press  conditions  in  Europe. 


SILAS  BENT 

Author  of  Ballyhoo  (1927)  ; at  various  times  associated  with  the  New 
York  Times,  The  World,  The  New  York  Herald,  the  St.  Louis 
Dispatch,  and  other  papers. 


MOSES  KOENIGSBERG 

President,  Newspaper  Feature  Service,  International  News  Service, 
Universal  Service,  and  the  King  Feature  Syndicate. 


JAMES  G.  McDONALD,  Chairman 


SPEAKER  S’  TABLE 


Willis  J.  Abbot 
Benjamin  Adams 
Silas  Bent 

James  Wright  Brown 
Prof.  Roscoe  C.  E.  Brown 
Percy  S.  Bullen 
Chester  Crowell 
Arthur  S.  Draper 
John  P.  Gavit 
Stanley  High 
Moses  Koenigsberg 
Ivy  L.  Lee 

Savel 


Walter  Lippmann 

Dr.  Arthur  Livingston 

Miss  Katherine  Ludington 

Frederick  Roy  Martin 

James  G.  McDonald 

Wilson  Midgley 

Mrs.  Whitney  Shepardson 

George  G.  Shor 

Dr.  Nicholas  J.  Spykman 

Dr.  Felix  Valyi 

Louis  Wiley 

Hendrick  Willem  Van  Loon 
Zimand 


The  Press 

Its  Responsibility  in  International  Relations 


MR.  JAMES  G.  McDONALD,  Chairman 
HE  subject  of  the  meeting  today  is  “The  Press:  Its  Responsibility 


in  International  Relations.”  We  are  particularly  glad  to  present  this 


program  to  the  audience  here  and  to  the  radio  audience  because  the 
press  is  the  one  means  we  have  of  keeping  in  contact  with  the  world.  If 
the  sources  of  our  news  are  free  and  clean,  then  we  have  the  possibility 
of  being  intelligently  informed,  but  if  the  sources  of  our  news  are  unclean 
and  contaminated,  either  by  prejudice  or  passion  or  by  anything  else, 
then  it  becomes  an  extraordinarily  difficult,  if  not  impossible  task,  for  a 
democracy  to  know  what  is  going  on  in  the  world,  or  for  that  matter  what 
is  going  on  in  the  seat  of  its  own  government. 

The  first  speaker  today,  Mr.  Abbot,  is  a man  who,  during  the  past 
several  months,  has  been  making  an  intensive  study  of  the  press  in  its 
international  aspects.  He  has  just  recently  returned  from  Europe.  In 
addition,  he  is  one  of  our  ablest  newspaper  men,  the  Chairman  of  the 
Board  of  Editors  of  the  Christian  Science  Monitor.  Mr.  Abbot  is  going 
to  make  a preliminary  statement  in  fifteen  minutes  of  some  of  the  problems 
which  the  press  faces  from  day  to  day  in  its  task  of  presenting  to  its 
readers  the  news  of  the  world.  Mr.  Abbot ! 


DIES  and  Gentlemen : For  many  years  past  I have  been  an  edi- 


torial writer.  The  task  of  an  editorial  writer  is  to  dispose  finally, 


authoritatively,  conclusively,  in  not  more  than  three  hundred  to 
five  hundred  words,  of  a subject  concerning  which  the  best  statesmen 
at  Washington  will  consume  page  after  page  of  the  Congressional  Record 
in  inconclusive  discussion.  That  is  rather  a difficult  job,  but  it  is  as 
nothing  compared  to  disposing  in  fifteen  minutes  of  the  problem  of  the 
responsibility  of  the  press  in  its  relation  to  international  affairs.  The 
limit  of  fifteen  minutes  would  make  the  most  hard-boiled  of  managing 
editors  express  words  of  sympathy. 

But  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  responsibility  of  the  press  for 
the  maintenance  of  harmonious  relations  between  nations.  There  never 
is  any  question  as  to  the  power  of  the  press  in  international  affairs.  If 
a nation  finds  itself  on  the  verge  of  war,  or  plunged  into  war,  the  first 
act  of  the  government  is  to  weld  the  press  into  one  single,  coherent, 


MR.  WILLIS  J.  ABBOT 


3 


actively-working  whole  for  the  purpose  of  creating  every  possible  form 
of  hatred  for  the  enemy.  Every  newspaper  joins  in  the  task,  every  canon 
of  journalism  is  violated  in  the  effort  to  stimulate  and  to  make  effective 
this  international  hatred.  The  war  once  ended,  this  action  comes  to  an 
end.  The  government  naturally  and  properly  withdraws  its  influence, 
and  the  press  recurs  to  its  former  condition  of  individual  independence. 

But  it  has  manifested  its  power.  It  has  made  the  people  of  one  country 
hate  bitterly  the  people  of  another  country  and  to  describe  them  as  Boches, 
Huns,  vandals,  and  worse. 

Great  power  naturally  implies  responsibility.  If  the  press  has  this 
power,  this  demonstrated  power,  in  war  time,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  press 
should  recognize  its  duty  to  avoid  anything  in  the  nature  of  publication 
of  international  news  which  tends  to  create  in  time  of  peace  hostile  criti- 
cism, antagonism,  and  even  hatred  for  the  people  of  countries  with  which 
we  are  at  war. 

You  may  think  that  there  is  no  danger  in  times  of  peace  of  antagonisms 
being  bred  because  of  irresponsible  journalism.  I have  had  too  many 
illustrations  come  to  my  attention,  without  being  sought  out,  of  the  utter 
indifference  of  a great  many  newspapers,  both  in  the  United  States  and 
abroad,  to  the  character  of  news  which  they  publish  and  its  effect  on  the 
public  mind. 

I could  tell  in  detail  of  having  heard  a correspondent  in  Berlin  say  at 
the  time  when  the  mark  was  at  its  very  lowest,  and  when  the  people  of  all 
Germany  were  in  a condition  which  naturally  would  have  inspired  in  right 
minds  every  possible  sympathy  and  desire  to  aid,  that  the  proprietor  of 
his  paper  had  recently  gone  home  leaving  him  instructions  not  to  discuss 
the  stabilization  of  the  currency,  the  reestablishment  of  industry.  “Get 
away  from  those  highbrow  topics,”  he  said,  “and  send  us  a lot  of  scandal 
about  high  life  and  the  way  in  which  the  aristocratic  people  who  have 
been  ruined  by  the  depreciation  of  the  mark  are  now  finding  a livelihood 
through  all  sorts  of  disreputable  and  scandalous  methods.” 

When  I was  in  England  not  so  long  ago,  I found  the  English  papers, 
the  London  papers,  commenting  with  a good  deal  of  acerbity,  and  justifi- 
ably so,  upon  a film  which  had  been  shown  in  the  United  States  which 
depicted  the  magnificent,  earnest  and  effective  efforts  of  the  United  States 
Navy  in  running  down  and  destroying  the  German  cruiser  Emden.  The 
film  and  its  captions  were  set  forth  at  a good  deal  of  length  in  the  London 
papers  with  comments  upon  the  way  in  which  the  Yankees  were  trying 
to  claim  credit  for  the  war  because,  of  course,  as  we  all  know,  the  Emden 
was  destroyed  long  before  the  United  States  entered  the  war.  That  was 
a stupid  blunder  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  Hollywood  manufacturers  of 
commercialized  films.  It  was  corrected  very  promptly  by  the  Central 
Moving  Picture  Bureau  in  New  York,  but  the  correction  never  got  to 
London. 

Again,  while  I was  in  London,  there  came  to  all  the  English  papers  the 
story  which  had  been  printed  in  full  in  a Washington  paper  of  an  Anglo- 
Japanese  alliance  which,  according  to  this  Washington  paper,  had  been 
completed.  There  was  not  a word  of  truth  in  it.  Our  own  State  De- 

4 


partment  had  to  correct  it.  But  the  story  had  gone  out  with  the  seal 
of  a very  responsible  paper  in  Washington  upon  it,  and  it  created  an- 
tagonism and  dislike. 

On  the  continent  of  Europe  the  news-gathering  agencies  are  largely  sub- 
sidized by  the  governments.  In  France,  for  example,  the  Havas  Agency 
is  a governmental  agency;  in  Germany  there  is  the  Wolf  Agency.  I was 
talking  to  one  of  the  managers  of  the  Havas  Agency  in  France,  and  he  de- 
plored the  way  in  which  the  Wolf  Agency  distorted  all  news  which  was  sent 
out,  to  the  discredit  of  France.  He  said,  “They  are  trying  to  keep  up  the 
hostility  of  the  German  people  toward  France.”  I went  over  to  Germany 
and  I talked  in  the  same  way  to  a member  of  the  staff  of  the  foreign 
office  there  and  to  a representative  of  the  Wolf  Agency,  and  he  said,  “Oh, 
just  wait.  We  will  gather  together  some  of  the  representative  items  sent 
out  by  the  Havas  Agency  and  let  you  see  what  the  French  news  agency 
is  doing  to  Germany.”  In  other  words,  each  one  was  able  to  point  the 
finger  of  scorn  at  the  other;  the  kettle  called  the  pot  black,  and  justifi- 
ably so. 

It  is  not  easy  to  correct  this  situation.  The  fault  does  not  lie  altogether 
with  the  correspondents.  The  fault  does  not  lie  altogether  with  the  home 
offices  of  the  paper.  The  correspondent  of  course  endeavors  to  gather 
the  character  of  news  which  he  feels  certain  is  going  to  strengthen  him  in 
his  home  office,  and  it  is  an  unfortunate  fact  that  more  interest  will  be 
taken  in  a sensational  dispatch  predicting  war  or  laying  stress  upon  ele- 
ments of  political  difference  between  different  nations,  than  in  really  con- 
structive, carefully  written  out  political  dispatches.  The  necessity  of  the 
newspaper  is  to  get  mass  circulation  in  order  to  satisfy  its  advertisers,  and 
it  gives  the  sensational  news  always  the  right  of  way.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  to  me  that  there  is  in  the  press  a growing  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
news  of  this  character  can  be  at  least  “soft-pedalled,”  as  the  phrase  goes. 

At  the  recent  conference  of  press  experts  at  Geneva,  they  passed,  by  a 
vote  of  twenty-seven  to  two,  resolutions  which  they  call,  “Dealing  with 
the  Publication  or  Distribution  of  Sententious  News.”  I will  read  just 
one  paragraph  from  it : 

“This  conference  expresses  the  desire  that  newspapers  and  news  agencies 
of  the  world  should  deem  it  their  duty  to  take  stringent  measures  to  avoid  the 
publication  or  distribution  of  such  news  or  articles,  and  should  also  consider 
the  possibility  of  active  international  cooperation  for  the  attainment  of  this 
purpose  which  is  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  League  of  Nations.” 

The  character  of  news  which  they  protested  was  obviously  inaccurate, 
highly-exaggerated  or  deliberately  distorted  news  or  articles.  They  might 
have  gone  farther  than  that,  I think.  I do  not  believe  that  as  a rule  news- 
papers do  send  deliberately  distorted  or  violently  exaggerated  news,  but  it 
is  possible  to  send  out  news  which  may  be  true,  which  is  true,  and  which 
nevertheless  should  not  be  published;  news  which  only  brings  into  dis- 
repute the  country  with  which  it  deals. 

I think  all  of  us  who  have  been  abroad  in  recent  years  have  been  dis- 
tressed by  the  character  of  the  news  that  goes  from  the  United  States  to 
the  average  European  newspaper.  I remember  talking  with  the  proprietor 

5 


of  one  of  the  greatest  papers  in  London  on  this  very  subject  only  a few 
weeks  ago,  and  he  said  to  me,  “Well,  you  hold  that  no  news  of  the  country 
in  which  the  correspondent  is  should  be  published  which  brings  its  people 
into  disrepute  with  the  people  of  the  country  in  which  it  is  published.” 

I said,  “In  the  main  I do  hold  that.” 

He  said,  “You  have  a fellow  over  in  Chicago,  a soft  of  a demagogue, 
we  think  him  over  here,  a blatherskite,  one  ‘Big  Bill’  Thompson  who  is 
constantly  attacking  the  English  government,  the  English  people,  and  the 
English  king.  Everything  he  says  has  a tendency  to  make  our  people 
irritated,  to  provoke  them.  Do  you  say  that  I should  not  print  anything 
about  ‘Big  Bill’  Thompson  in  my  paper?” 

Of  course  no  newspaper  man  could  say  that  he  should  refrain  from  the 
publication  of  that  news,  but  I did  say  to  him,  “I  wish  you  would  have 
your  managing  editor  or  someone  in  your  office  look  back  through  the 
files  of  your  paper  for  the  last  three  months  and  find  how  often  anything 
except  stories  about  ‘Big  Bill’  Thompson  have  come  to  you  from  Chicago,” 
and  he  had  to  admit  that  there  was  practically  nothing  sent  out  from 
Chicago  except  the  stories  about  its  eccentric  Mayor.  The  people  who 
read  his  paper  and  the  people  who  read  the  other  London  papers  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Chicago  is  a wonderful  city,  practically  re- 
building itself  for  aesthetic  and  artistic  purposes,  and  that  the  great  ma- 
jority of  its  people  are  not  interested  in  the  question  whether  “Big  Bill” 
is  going  to  punch  King  George’s  snoot  or  not.  It  is  a question  of  propor- 
tion. If  we  get  into  the  habit  of  constantly  exaggerating  and  harping 
upon  these  inharmonious  things,  we  necessarily  do  build  up  a feeling  of 
inharmony,  of  antagonism  and  ultimate  hostility  between  the  nations. 

The  other  day  there  came  to  my  desk  a little  pamphlet  containing  a 
speech  by  M.  Henri  Berenger,  who  was  recently  the  French  Ambassador 
to  the  United  States,  in  which  he  complains  bitterly  that  the  press  of 
Paris  nowadays  systematically  refers  to  the  United  States,  in  type  and  in 
cartoon,  as  “Uncle  Shylock,”  and  he  says  that  it  is  breaking  down  the  his- 
toric friendship  between  the  French  and  the  American  people.  I wonder 
whether  here  on  this  side  of  the  water  we  can  claim  to  be  entirely  free 
from  a press  which  is  apt  to  describe  the  French  people  as  seeking  to 
evade  their  just  responsibilities,  as  subordinating  the  payment  of  their 
righteous  debts  to  a desire  for  military  glory  and  the  aggrandizement  of 
their  country.  I think  we  will  find  that  on  both  sides  of  the  water  the 
error  is  committed  of  depicting  the  other  people  in  terms  which  neces- 
sarily inspire  hostility  on  their  part. 

As  I say,  there  are  many  things  which  enter  into  this  problem  of  in- 
ternational news  correspondence  which  make  it  perplexing.  The  more 
fully  we  can  carry  the  news  from  one  country  to  another,  the  more  com- 
prehensive the  dispatches  are,  the  more  accurate  they  are,  the  better  the 
chance  is  of  having  a perfect  comprehension  of  the  mentality  and  the  social 
development  of  one  country  by  the  people  of  another. 

But  cable  tolls  come  very  high.  They  cost  a great  deal  of  money.  It 
might  interest  you  to  know  that  in  the  United  States  today  there  are  only 
seven  newspapers  that  really  maintain  considerable  foreign  services,  that 

6 


is,  actual  bureaus  abroad  with  correspondents  in  every  capital.  The  rest 
of  the  papers  rely  upon  either  the  press  agencies  or  the  syndicated  matter 
sent  out  by  these  papers.  A newspaper  desiring  to  cover  a matter  oc- 
curring in  Shanghai  has  to  pay  thirty-five  cents  a word,  in  Tokyo  thirty- 
seven  cents,  in  the  Argentine  (and  you  notice  that  the  news  from  Havana 
is  that  the  delegates  of  the  Argentine  are  very  critical  of  American  dom- 
ination) fourteen  cents.  And  so  it  goes,  a very  serious  charge  upon  the 
newspaper  which  attempts  to  cover  the  world  freely  and  comprehensively. 

Can  this  condition  be  corrected  ? I hope  that  the  condition  growing  out 
of  the  costliness  of  cable  service  will  in  time  be  corrected  somewhat  by 
the  competition  of  wireless,  somewhat  by  cooperation  between  the  news- 
papers. I believe  also — and  I know  that  it  has  been  put  into  successful 
operation  by  at  least  one  newspaper — that  this  question  of  unfair,  ir- 
ritating and  provocative  news  can  be  corrected  by  proper  instructions  sent 
to  the  correspondents.  If  correspondents  are  instructed  never  to  send 
to  the  home  office  news  relative  to  political  or  social  movements  in  the 
country  to  which  they  are  accredited  which  has  a tendency  to  bring  the 
government  or  the  people  of  that  country  into  disrepute  or  contempt  by 
the  people  of  the  country  in  which  the  paper  is  published,  which  has  a 
tendency  to  be  irritating  or  provocative,  it  will  go  a long  way  toward  cor- 
recting this  evil.  Those  men  over  there  desire  to  stand  well  with  their 
home  offices.  Most  of  them  are  men  of  high  standing.  I think  possibly 
the  standard  of  foreign  correspondents  might  be  raised  to  advantage. 
It  can  be  raised.  The  nature  of  news  sent  can  be  improved  by  efforts 
from  the  home  office,  and  I believe  that  the  determination  of  the  news- 
paper press  of  this  country  to  issue  instructions  of  that  character  would 
go  a long  way  toward  settling  the  problem  as  to  the  responsibility  of  the 
newspapers  of  the  world  for  the  maintenance  of  harmonious  relations  be- 
tween the  nations.  I thank  you. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Abbot  referred  to  the  International  Press  Con- 
ference in  Geneva  last  September.  One  of  the  outstanding  figures  from 
the  United  States  at  that  conference  was  Mr.  Koenigsberg,  who  is  the 
next  speaker. 

Mr.  Koenigsberg  started  a — well,  perhaps  I should  not  call  it  a row, 
but  certainly  a — very  animated  discussion,  at  that  conference,  by  challeng- 
ing boldly  some  of  the  commonly  accepted  principles  of  transmitting 
news.  I hope  that  Mr.  Koenigsberg  is  no  less  bold  and  courageous  in 
his  home  town. 

Mr.  Koenigsberg  is  President  of  International  News  Service,  News- 
paper Feature  Service,  King  Features  Syndicate,  and  Universal  Service. 
Mr.  Koenigsberg! 


MR.  MOSES  KOENIGSBERG 

MR.  CHAIRMAN,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : I am  sorry  my  benignant 
friend,  Mr.  Abbot,  does  not  like  our  newspapers.  He  has  been 
out  of  the  newspaper  business  so  long  that  I am  afraid  he  has  conceived 
a sense  of  alienship  for  his  former  calling.  I say  this  with  full  recogni- 
tion of  the  Chairman’s  introduction  of  Mr.  Abbot.  His  suggestion  that 

7 


reporters  and  correspondents  be  instructed  not  to  send  the  news,  if  car- 
ried out,  would  destroy  the  cardinal  purposes  of  journalism.  A reporter 
or  correspondent  would  not  discharge  his  duty,  nor  would  he  be  a re- 
porter or  a correspondent  if  he  exercised  any  judgment  as  to  what  news 
he  should  not  send.  The  editor  determines  what  shall  be  printed.  The 
reporter  and  the  correspondent  report  the  facts. 

The  topic  for  today,  “Responsibility  of  the  Press  in  International  Af- 
fairs,” suggests  the  thought  that  responsibility  of  any  sort  in  interna- 
tional affairs  is  a large  order.  In  fact,  it  is  the  largest  order  that  one  can 
deliver  for  human  fulfilment.  However,  its  discharge  involves  little  less 
of  difficulty  than  its  definition. 

The  fixing  of  responsibility  in  any  transaction  is  difficult.  A humorous 
incident,  so  pertinent  that  it  thrusts  itself  upon  my  recollection,  will  il- 
lustrate the  point. 

One  of  the  widest  known  pugilists  of  the  day  was  born  of  devout 
Jewish  parentage  here  in  New  York.  His  early  appearances  in  the  ring 
were  kept  secret  from  his  family.  Finally  his  success  had  grown  so  great 
that  the  secrecy  could  be  no  longer  preserved  and  his  manager  went  to 
his  father  to  arrange  for  the  sanction  of  the  family.  The  father  recoiled 
from  the  thought  of  having  his  son  exhibit  a disarranged  physiognomy 
with  cauliflower  ears  and  he  did  not  think  the  calling  was  any  good  any- 
how. But  the  manager  was  eloquent.  He  pointed  out  that  there  was  a 
great  artistry,  a great  skill  in  this  calling,  and  that  some  day  the  son 
would  be  as  well  known  as  Jascha  Heifetz  or  Mischa  Elman.  The  re- 
luctant father  finally  gave  his  consent  and  Benny  Leonard  went  forward 
to  a career  of  great  success. 

Every  time  he  fought  he  came  home  and  found  his  father  reading  the 
Torah.  The  parent  would  look  up  and  say,  “Did  you  win?” 

Benny  would  say,  “I  licked  him  in  a round,”  or  two  rounds,  as  the 
case  might  be. 

But  there  came  a night  when  Benny’s  report  was  not  so  satisfactory. 
The  father  closed  the  Torah. 

“Well,  did  you  win?” 

“No.” 

“What  happened?” 

“Why,  it  was  a draw.” 

“But  your  face — -it  is  terrible!  Tell  me  how  it  happened.” 

“Well,  this  Freddie  Welsh  is  better  than  any  of  the  men  I ever  fought 
before.  Every  time  I tried  to  hit  him  he  was  out  somewhere  else,  and  he 
hit  me  oftener  than  all  of  the  other  fighters  I have  ever  fought.” 

The  unhappy  father  pondered  a moment  and  then  in  grave  indignation 
asked,  “Well,  where  was  Gibson — the  manager?” 

And  in  considering  the  responsibility  of  the  press  in  international  affairs 
I feel  a good  deal  like  that  disgruntled  father  as  my  mind  inquires : Where 
are  you,  the  readers  of  the  newspapers,  without  whom  there  could  be  no 
press  and  for  whom  and  to  whom  the  responsibility  of  the  press  is  para- 
mount ? 


8 


Responsibility  presupposes  the  existence  of  a trust,  duty  or  obligation. 
In  the  case  of  the  responsibility  of  the  press  in  international  affairs,  to 
whom  is  the  press  answerable?  To  whom  is  a newspaper  responsible? 
Until  we  determine  this  point  we  cannot  measure  the  responsibility. 

Can  there  be  any  question  that  the  press  must  answer  to  the  public  and 
that  its  responsibility  begins  and  ends  with  that  public?  Next,  what  do 
we  mean  by  the  public?  Is  a newspaper  in  Ohio  responsible  to  the  public 
of  Pennsylvania,  or  to  the  people  of  Europe  or  to  a community  in  China? 
I think  not.  I believe  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  responsibility  of 
any  newspaper  begins  and  ends  with  the  public  which  it  serves.  A re- 
sponsibility that  cannot  be  discharged  is  obviously  a fatuity. 

Is  the  responsibility  of  the  newspaper  in  international  affairs  any  less 
than  its  responsibility  in  local  affairs  ? Indeed,  might  we  not  ask  whether 
the  responsibility  of  a newspaper  is  not  equally  as  great  in  any  branch 
or  any  department  of  public  interest  as  it  is  in  another?  Since  we  must 
fix  the  limits  of  responsibility  as  co-extensive  with  the  limits  of  service, 
does  it  not  follow  as  a necessary  corollary  that  the  obligation  of  the  press 
is  uniformly  the  same,  no  matter  whether  the  subject  involved  be  national, 
international,  or  local? 

We  cannot  indulge  the  thought  that  a newspaper  could  be  recreant  in 
its  trust  in  local  affairs  and  still  serve  as  a responsible  factor  in  interna- 
tional affairs.  The  loss  of  faith  of  readers  on  matters  close  at  hand 
would  be  followed  by  a loss  of  faith  on  remote  subjects. 

I believe  it  follows  logically,  therefore,  that  when  we  consider  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  press  in  international  affairs  we  consider  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  press  in  all  of  its  aspects.  That  conclusion,  however,  would 
not  dispose  of  the  subject  before  us.  I assume  that  the  Foreign  Policy 
Association  in  arranging  this  discussion  sought  an  opportunity  to  learn 
how  the  responsibility  of  the  press  in  international  affairs  might  be  ex- 
panded so  as  to  assure  a larger  service  to  humanity  through  a shorter 
and  quicker  path  to  international  understanding.  Such  an  outcome  would 
have  the  approval  of  every  thinking  man. 

How  shall  we  approach  it?  I will  tell  you.  Not  by  attacking  the  press 
for  printing  what  you  as  individuals  may  not  want  printed  or  for  failing 
to  print  what  you  as  individuals  desire  published.  Denunciation  as  in- 
dividuals will  yield  no  result. 

Newspapers  select  the  materials  that  they  print  from  a mass  of  matter, 
and  this  selection  comprehends  only  a fractional  part  of  the  reading  matter 
available  for  presentation.  The  task  of  the  editor  is  to  select.  The  task 
of  the  reader  is  to  elect  the  paper  which  makes  selections  that  have  his 
approval.  Thus  we  find  that  the  editor  selects,  the  reader  elects,  and  upon 
the  outcome  of  this  community  election  depends  the  success  or  failure 
of  the  newspaper. 

We  find  that  the  average  newspaper  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  prints 
a considerable  amount  of  international  news.  The  farther  inland  we  go  the 
less  foreign  news  appears  in  the  newspapers  printed  and  published  there. 
Why?  Because  the  interests  of  the  readers  in  the  interior  are  not  quick- 
ened by  international  topics.  Is  the  editor  to  ignore  the  obvious  facts 

9 


of  reader  election?  Should  he  insist  upon  printing  materials  from  which 
his  readers  turn  with  indifference  and  thereby  lose  his  readers? 

Moveover,  the  only  contribution  the  press  can  make  to  an  international 
understanding  is  that  which  its  readers  will  accept.  This  acceptance  can 
be  measured  with  two  yardsticks : first,  the  number  of  readers,  and  sec- 
ond, the  degree  of  receptivity  of  those  readers.  The  number  of  readers 
is  determined  by  the  skill  of  the  publisher  in  securing  circulation,  in  offer- 
ing to  the  public  that  character  and  quality  of  product  that  invites  and 
commands  purchase. 

The  time  is  past  when  political  programs  attract  large  circulation.  Par- 
tisanship and  polemics  have  disappeared  as  the  sirens  with  which  to  en- 
chant readers.  In  the  old  days,  newspapers  were  made  with  an  eye  single 
for  male  consumption.  Today  the  successful  publisher  is  constantly  on 
the  alert  for  women  readers.  He  can  and  does  print  the  news,  but  so  can 
and  does  his  competitor.  The  display  and  recital  of  this  news  offer  fields 
for  exercise  of  art  and  skill,  but  these  fields  seldom  afford  the  sole  means 
for  achieving  leadership. 

The  publisher  who  seeks  volume  of  circulation  includes  in  his  paper 
those  elements  which  make  for  habits  of  reader  attention  and  reader  ex- 
pectation, which  encourage  purchase  of  editions  whether  the  news  of  the 
day  is  dull  or  not.  Thus  has  grown  up  in  the  current  generation  the  im- 
portant factor  of  newspaper  features,  elements  of  entertainment,  amuse- 
ment, instruction  and  social  service.  They  attract  and  stabilize  circula- 
tion without  which  a newspaper  could  contribute  nothing  to  international 
or  any  other  understanding. 

Now,  as  to  reader  receptivity,  from  what  source  does  it  evolve,  and  of 
what  elements  does  it  consist?  The  receptivity  of  a newspaper  reader  is 
fixed  by  several  elements,  chief  of  which  are  cultural  background,  ethical 
outlook,  innate  sympathy  and  a sense  of  social  responsibility.  Mix  gen- 
erous proportions  of  these  with  a bit  of  lively  humor,  and  you  have  a 
most  receptive  newspaper  reader.  The  newspaper,  however,  cannot  supply 
these  elements.  It  can  only  present  the  material  with  which  to  attract 
and  engage  them.  That  it  discharges  this  function  efficiently  is  best  at- 
tested by  the  overwhelming  tribute  that  sound  business  registers  in  the 
advertising  columns  of  the  newspapers  of  America,  and  this  attestation 
is  convincingly  ratified  by  the  eagerness  with  which  every  leader  of  thought 
and  every  proponent  of  social  progress  seeks  the  columns  of  the  press  for 
the  propagation  of  his  ideals. 

If  the  press  were  to  devote  more  space  than  is  now  allotted  to  the  re- 
cital of  foreign  affairs  and  the  readers  of  American  newspapers  ignored 
or  failed  to  comprehend  these  stories,  would  we  have  approached  or  re- 
ceded from  a better  international  understanding? 

Newspapers  cannot  continue  without  increasing  circulation.  A news- 
paper cannot  stand  still  because,  with  the  advance  of  its  competitors  and 
the  increase  of  population,  a static  condition  in  journalism  means  a retro- 
gression inevitably  leading  to  failure.  Hence  newspapers  will  pay  in- 
creasing attention  and  devote  constantly  expanding  energies  to  the  pres- 
entation of  those  elements  of  news  and  interest  which  their  readers  demand. 


10 


It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  contribution  of  the  press  to  interna- 
tional understanding  will  increase  or  diminish  according  to  the  inclination 
of  the  readers  to  acquire  that  understanding.  Newspapers  do  not  print 
the  reports  of  ball  games  in  order  to  stimulate  interest  in  baseball.  They 
publish  baseball  stories  in  response  to  the  obvious  expression  of  interest 
on  the  part  of  their  readers  in  the  national  game.  The  importance  of  and 
interest  in  news  are  not  fixed  by  the  fiat  of  the  editor.  They  are  wholly 
determined  by  the  reader. 

Consider  what  would  happen  to  the  newspaper  that  insisted  from  day 
to  day  on  devoting  most  of  its  space  to  matter  uninteresting  to  a majority 
of  its  readers.  Let  us  assume  that  such  a newspaper  devoted  most  of  its 
space  to  essays  of  statesmen,  publicists  and  scholars  upon  the  social, 
economic,  and  political  problems  of  foreign  nations.  Let  us  assume  that 
these  articles  were  written  by  the  ablest  essayists  of  our  day.  How  much 
circulation  would  this  paper  retain  in  competition  with  any  of  the  leading 
newspapers  in  your  community? 

You  will  find  that  successful  newspapers  achieve  their  success  by  print- 
ing in  their  columns  the  news  of  the  day,  and  in  their  editorial  columns 
the  sermons  extracted  from  the  texts  supplied  by  that  news. 

President  Coolidge,  in  an  address  to  the  Pan-American  Congress  in 
Havana  the  other  day,  said,  “In  this  great  work  of  furthering  inter-Ameri- 
can understanding  a large  responsibility  rests  upon  the  press  of  all  coun- 
tries. In  our  present  stage  of  civilization  knowledge  of  foreign  peoples 
is  almost  wholly  supplied  from  that  source.  By  misinterpreting  facts 
or  by  carelessness  in  presenting  them  in  their  true  light  much  damage  can 
be  done.  While  great  progress  has  been  made  toward  the  publication  of 
fuller  information  and  unbiased  views,  a better  exchange  of  news  service 
would  do  much  to  promote  mutual  knowledge  and  understanding. 

“What  happens  in  this  hemisphere  is  of  more  vital  interest  to  all  of  us 
than  what  happens  across  any  of  the  oceans.” 

Now  how  is  this  exchange  of  news  to  be  widened  and  broadened?  The 
President  suggests  increased  facilities  for  communication.  We  should 
consider  two  points  in  connection  with  this  suggestion. 

First,  America  sends  out  to  all  the  world  uncensored  facts  while  the 
American  press  receives  from  abroad  a great  mass  of  material  that  is 
not  news  but  which  consists  largely  of  censored  messages  or  of  statements 
intended  only  for  propaganda  purposes.  This  outflow  of  real  news  in 
exchange  for  an  inflow  of  colored  or  partially  suppressed  news  is  not  a 
fair  exchange. 

Second,  I heartily  favor  every  possible  expansion  of  the  means  of  com- 
munication between  the  countries  of  the  world,  but  it  is  a fact  that  the 
present  facilities  are  ample  to  accommodate  five  times  more  news  of  for- 
eign countries  than  is  printed  in  any  of  them.  The  average  metropolitan 
newspaper  discards  more  than  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  foreign  news 
it  receives.  The  average  European  newspaper  prints  practically  no  for- 
eign news  that  has  not  been  colored  or  treated  to  accord  with  the  partisan 
policies  to  which  the  paper  is  devoted.  Thus  we  find  that  the  advance- 
ment of  international  understanding  through  press  publication  of  intema- 

11 


tional  news  has  not  reached  a stage  corresponding  to  the  facilities  which 
are  available. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  press  has  failed  in  its  responsibility?  Is  it 
true  that  a newspaper  is  obligated  to  print  all  the  foreign  news  it  re- 
ceives? Does  the  obligation  to  print  foreign  news  exceed  the  duty  to 
print  domestic  news  or  local  information?  It  may  be  interesting  in  this 
connection  to  note  that  the  average  metropolitan  newspaper  discards 
vastly  more  domestic  than  foreign  news. 

If  the  Foreign  Policy  Association  be  eager  to  expand  the  responsibility 
of  the  press  in  international  affairs,  I believe  it  should  address  itself  to 
the  promotion  of  interest  in  international  affairs  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployers of  the  press,  the  great  public,  by  which  the  press  is  inspired  and 
to  whom  the  press  dedicates  its  soul  and  its  service. 

How  is  that  to  be  done?  I think  the  answer  is  obvious.  Promote  in 
your  public  schools  that  course  of  instruction  which  will  give  to  the  bud- 
ding minds  of  the  nation  an  interest  in  and  a sympathy  with  world  prob- 
lems. 

The  success  of  such  a laudable  undertaking  might  be  enhanced  by  an- 
other course  in  the  public  schools — a system  of  instruction  in  newspaper 
reading.  Most  of  the  advantages  of  the  stupendous  task  of  covering  world 
news,  daily  performed  by  the  press,  are  lost  or  neglected  by  a majority 
of  readers.  Not  only  is  there  a widespread  inclination  to  confine  news- 
paper reading  to  the  gratification  of  curiosity  and  the  pursuit  of  enter- 
tainment, but  stories  are  read  with  such  haste  that  not  one  out  of  ten 
readers  can  determine  in  recollection  of  a specific  point  whether  it  was  a 
statement  of  fact  or  an  expression  of  opinion. 

Yet,  despite  all  this  waste,  there  is  entering  into  civilization  a mightier 
force  for  the  establishment  of  human  understanding  than  could  have 
been  mustered  in  all  the  centuries  of  hitherto  recorded  history.  It  is  now 
the  privilege  of  the  American  newspaper  reader  to  absorb  in  his  lifetime 
more  authentic  information  of  all  kinds,  a greater  knowledge  of  world 
affairs,  and  a larger  mass  of  general  learning  than  was  known  to  the 
entire  human  species  a half-dozen  generations  ago. 

If  the  press  supplies  this  opportunity,  does  it  not  discharge  in  at  least 
a commendable  degree  its  responsibility  in  international  affairs  ? The  para- 
mount responsibility  of  the  press  in  all  affairs  is  to  supply  the  facts  ac- 
curately. I have  been  proud  to  be  identified  with  a news  service,  the 
slogan  of  which  is,  “Get  it  first,  but  first  get  it  right.”  That  slogan  is 
confirmed  by  the  rule  that  the  reporter  shall  not  tell  what  he  thinks  oc- 
curred, but  shall  tell  what  actually  occurred. 

Another  injunction  laid  upon  the  correspondents  of  that  news  service 
is  to  identify  the  source  of  the  news  in  the  story  itself.  The  same  com- 
mandment requires  that  if  a statement  be  issued  or  an  interview  granted, 
the  words  shall  be  quoted  directly,  so  that  the  correspondent’s  interpreta- 
tion is  not  substituted  for  the  text  of  the  pronouncement.  By  the  same 
token,  that  correspondent  would  be  discharged  from  service  if  he  elected 
to  determine  whether  that  statement,  whether  that  interview  should  be 
sent  for  any  reason  other  than  the  newspaper  principles  that  guide  his 
efforts. 


12 


I believe  that  these  rules,  consistently  pursued  by  news  services  and 
newspapers,  will  discharge  fully  the  responsibility  of  the  press  in  interna- 
tional affairs.  I believe  that  the  American  press  seeks  to  discharge  its 
obligations  with  a profound  regard  for  the  high  privilege  it  enjoys. 
I know  of  no  agency  in  civilization  endowed  with  equal  opportunities 
for  public  service.  I know  of  no  calling  that  inspires  so  great  a zeal  for 
public  service,  and  I know  of  no  profession  responsive  to  higher  traditions. 

The  commandment  in  which  is  embraced  all  the  practical  and  ethical 
obligations  of  the  press  is  borrowed  from  the  Arthurian  Knights  of  old, 
“Thou  shalt  be  everywhere  and  always  the  champion  of  the  right  and 
the  good  against  evil  and  injustice.” 

I am  reminded  of  some  stories  that  have  just  reached  me  from  Havana, 
where  there  is  an  international  conference  in  progress,  of  the  perils  and 
hazards  of  misunderstanding  among  nationals  of  different  countries. 
These  two  stories  I am  about  to  tell  you  may  be  printed  tomorrow,  but 
they  will  indicate  that  the  individual  may  be  misled  even  when  he  is 
close  at  hand,  much  more  than  the  correspondent  who  is  a trained  observer. 

An  American  group  in  Havana  the  other  day,  attempting  to  fraternize 
convivially  with  some  Cubans,  the  conviviality  being  supplied  by  condi- 
tions that  are  not  prevalent  in  America  at  the  moment,  said,  “How  do  you 
like  the  independence  that  we  gave  you?” 

There  was  no  riot,  and  I doubt  that  those  Americans  knew  that  they 
had  so  bitterly  offended  their  Cuban  friends;  but  the  Cubans  have  a na- 
tionalism of  their  own.  They  want  their  own  heroes.  They  think  that 
Cuba  was  liberated  by  Cuba  and  by  Cubans,  and  they  do  not  want  to  have 
borrowed  American  heroes  to  associate  with  the  traditions  of  the  liberation 
of  Cuba. 

They  say  that  we  might  have  helped,  and  I think  they  are  quite  grateful 
for  our  help,  but  it  is  rather  bad  taste  for  an  American  visiting  Cuba  to 
tell  how  we  liberated  Cuba.  It  would  be  equally  bad  taste  for  a corres- 
pondent to  send  a story  that  reflected  upon  the  social  customs,  upon  the 
habits  or  upon  the  outward  demeanor  of  the  country  in  which  he  was  a 
resident. 

I believe  that  my  benignant  friend,  Mr.  Abbot,  will  agree  that  most  of  the 
men  engaged  in  newspaper  work  abroad  are  gentlemen,  and  that  they  work 
as  gentlemen,  and  that  they  are  not  in  the  practice  of  sending  stories  cal- 
culated to  produce  hostility  or  enmity. 

Still  another  evidence  of  how  difficult  it  is  to  overcome  little  differences 
of  taste  among  internationals.  When  President  Coolidge  was  delivering 
his  speech  in  the  National  Theatre,  the  reporters  were  close  at  hand, 
and  as  soon  as  he  concluded  his  speech  they  made  a break  for  the  tele- 
graph offices.  One  of  them  tried  to  step  over  a rope  that  was  on  the 
platform.  A Cuban  policeman  said,  “Don’t  do  that!  You  are  in  a 
civilized  country ; you  are  not  in  America.” 

It  happens  that  the  correspondent  was  a European.  Still,  it  does  be- 
token the  fact  that  the  Cuban  outlook  is  not  quite  the  same  as  the  Ameri- 
can outlook,  and  that  there  are  many  delicate  situations  that  even  corres- 
pondents with  cosmopolitan  training  have  difficulty  in  distinguishing  at 

13 


first,  but  if  they  discharge  their  duties  as  newspaper  men,  they  certainly 
will  not  contribute  to  international  misunderstanding  by  sending  stories 
that  a gentleman  would  not  send. 

The  Chairman  : The  next  and  third  speaker  is  Mr.  Silas  Bent,  author 
of  Ballyhoo,  and  The  Voice  of  the  Press,  and  at  various  times  associated 
with  the  New  York  Times,  The  World,  The  New  York  Herald,  the  St. 
Louis  Dispatch,  and  other  papers.  Mr.  Bent ! 

MR.  SILAS  BENT 

MR.  McDONALD,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  The  two  speakers  who 
have  preceded  me  have  set  before  us  pretty  clearly,  I think,  a 
dilemma  which  the  press  faces  in  our  foreign  relations.  Mr.  Abbot  be- 
lieves in  the  responsibility  of  the  editor  and  the  correspondent  to  select 
such  news  as  might  best  be  printed  for  the  preservation  of  international 
amity.  If  I have  mis-stated  his  view,  I hope  he  will  correct  me.  Mr. 
Koenigsberg  disavows  any  such  responsibility,  and  would  let  events  take 
their  course.  Mr.  Abbot  would  introduce  a moral  order  into  journalism. 
Mr.  Koenigsberg  has  a pagan  freedom  from  any  sense  of  moral  responsi- 
bility. And  he  would  shift  that  responsibility  to  you,  the  reader. 

What  Mr.  Koenigsberg  wants  is  to  permit  the  free  play  of  the  stereo- 
types which  govern  the  selection  and  display  of  news.  Those  stereotypes, 
my  friends,  were  fashioned  back  in  the  eighteen-thirties  by  the  elder 
James  Gordon  Bennett,  and,  so  far  as  most  of  the  newspapers  in  this 
country  are  concerned,  nothing  fundamentally  new  has  been  discovered 
about  news  in  nearly  a century.  The  paper  with  which  Mr.  Abbot  is  as- 
sociated is  conducting  what  seems  to  me  an  extraordinarily  interesting 
experiment  in  cutting  new  patterns  for  news.  The  stereotypes  are  based 
on  primitive  appetites  and  emotions.  They  are  based  on  mystery,  sus- 
pense, romance,  the  old  folk  tales  of  Cinderella  and  the  Prince  and  Peas- 
ant, on  violence,  illicit  sex  relations,  and  above  all,  conflict.  The  news 
which  is  coming  now  out  of  Havana  is  based  on  the  possibility  of  a ruction 
about  Nicaragua,  not  on  what  is  happening  from  day  to  day. 

The  newspapers  of  Kansas  City,  which,  so  far  as  I know,  are  the  only 
ones  as  yet  to  report  on  the  selling  value  of  the  Hickman  story,  (the  story 
of  that  unfortunate  boy  out  on  the  Coast,  a victim  of  mental  and  physical 
disease,  who  abducted  and  mutilated  a girl) — those  newspapers  report 
that  this  is  the  best  peace-time  selling  story  they  have  had,  better  than 
Lindbergh’s  flight  to  Paris,  better  than  the  Dempsey-Tunney  fight,  better 
than  the  Snyder-Gray  murder  story. 

Mark  this ! They  differentiate  between  the  peace-time  selling  value 
of  a story  and  the  war-time  selling  value.  War  sells  more  papers  than 
any  other  news ; and  this  has  got  to  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  think  of  the 
responsibility  of  the  press  or  its  irresponsibility  in  foreign  relations.  The 
economic  tug  is  always  for  war. 

Bismarck  said  that  every  country  must  pay  in  the  long  run  for  the 
windows  its  press  broke  in  other  countries.  That  sounds,  if  you  ex- 
amine it  now,  merely  as  though  the  newspapers  were  prankishly  irrespon- 

14 


sible.  Actually  it  goes  deeper,  because  it  goes  to  the  fundamental  pat- 
terns of  news. 

I like  to  look  at  the  press  objectively.  We  have  a situation  in  Nicar- 
agua which  is  important  in  our  foreign  relations ; and  I ask  you  to  note, 
first,  that  originally  the  men  under  Sandino  were  denominated  in  our 
news  columns — not  the  editorial  pages  alone,  but  in  our  news  columns — - 
as  bandits.  Then  when  we  had  four  or  five  thousand  marines  there,  it 
became  a little  undignified  to  call  them  bandits,  and  the  press  began  call- 
ing them  rebels.  But  either  the  word  “bandits,”  or  the  word  “rebels”  or 
the  word  “patriots”  is  an  expression  of  opinion.  We  have  such  expres- 
sions of  opinion  always,  not  only  in  the  news  itself,  but  in  the  manner 
of  selecting  and  presenting  news. 

On  January  9 our  newspapers  printed  an  Associated  Press  dispatch 
from  Nicaragua  which  said : “A  rebel  soldier  beheading  an  American 

marine  is  the  design  on  General  Augustino  Sandino’s  seal  of  the  Republic 
of  Nicaragua.  The  seal,  found  on  official  documents  issued  by  Sandino, 
shows  a Sandino  soldier  leaning  over  a fallen  marine,  grasping  an  up- 
raised machete  in  his  right  hand,  and  the  marine’s  hair  in  his  left  hand.” 

That,  whether  it  is  true  or  not,  is  good  window  smashing  stuff.  It 
is  the  sort  of  stuff  Mr.  Abbot  would  keep  out  of  the  press;  it  is  the  sort 
of  stuff  Mr.  Koenigsberg  thinks  ought  to  go  into  the  press ; and  it  reveals 
the  dilemma  of  responsibility  which  faces  the  press. 

We  have  recently  had  an  example  of  the  operation  of  the  press  on  our 
foreign  relations  in  the  publication  by  twenty-six  Hearst  newspapers  of  a 
series  of  “Mexican”  documents.  A Senate  investigating  committee  has 
found  that  the  documents  were  forged.  Even  experts  called  in  by  Hearst, 
belatedly,  found  that  the  documents  had  been  forged,  and  the  committee 
so  reported;  but  nothing  whatsoever  by  way  of  reproof  has  been  said 
to  Mr.  Hearst. 

Every  member  of  that  committee  is  within  easy  stone’s  throw  of  one 
or  more  Hearst  papers.  The  chairman  of  the  Committee,  Senator  David 
Reed,  has  in  his  home  town,  Pittsburgh,  fifty-fifty  a Hearst  press.  Two 
out  of  the  four  daily  newspapers  there  are  under  the  loving  ministrations 
of  Mr.  Koenigsberg  and  his  associates. 

Now,  I hope  that  you  were  more  shocked  at  the  revelations  regarding 
the  publication  of  spurious  documents  purporting  to  be  Mexican  state 
documents  than  I was.  I had  seen  that  same  piece  of  propaganda  in  op- 
eration before,  and  I had  seen  it  printed  not  merely  in  twenty-six  news- 
papers, but  distributed  to  twelve  hundred  newspapers  with  an  audience 
of  twenty-four  million. 

About  a year  and  a half  ago,  Robert  E.  Olds,  Secretary  Kellogg’s  for- 
mer law  partner  and  his  subordinate  in  the  Department  of  State, — Mr.  Olds 
has  since  been  promoted — called  to  his  office  the  representatives  of  the 
three  principal  news  agencies  in  Washington, — the  Associated  Press,  the 
United  Press,  and  the  International  News,  the  last-named  being  the  Hearst 
agency;  and  he  told  them  a story  precisely  similar  in  effect  and  (so  far 
as  we  know  anything  about  motives)  precisely  similar  in  intent,  about 
Mexico.  He  said  that  Mexico  was  a hotbed  of  Bolshevist  propaganda, 

15 


that  Mexico  was  trying  to  effect  a Bolshevist  hegemony  of  Central  Amer- 
ica. And  the  Hearst  agency  refused  to  print  it. 

The  Associated  Press  representative  and  the  United  Press  man  said 
to  Mr.  Olds,  “We  will  print  that  if  you  will  stand  sponsor  for  it.  You 
can  thus  get  it  on  every  first  page  in  this  country,  the  first  page  of  every 
newspaper.” 

Oh,  no,  that  would  be  most  unbecoming  and  undiplomatic ! Mr.  Olds 
could  not  possibly  do  that.  They  must  put  it  out  on  their  own  authority. 

The  Associated  Press  did  put  it  out,  the  other  agencies  did  not;  and 
when  the  manager  of  the  Washington  bureau  of  the  Associated  Press  was 
taken  to  task  about  it,  he  said  quite  truthfully  that  this  had  come  to  him 
in  the  usual  course  of  news  and  that  he  had  no  reason  to  doubt  its  ac- 
curacy. It  did  come  to  him  in  the  usual  course  of  news  as  it  is  put  out 
continually  in  Washington  by  screened  and  irresponsible  officials. 

Now  in  both  those  cases  we  have  publications  tending  to  imperil  rela- 
tions wfith  a neighbor  with  whom  we  are  always  on  delicate  and,  frequently, 
on  strained  terms.  In  one  case  we  had  a chain  of  newspapers  being  made 
the  willing  or  unwilling  dupe  of  forgers.  In  the  other  case  we  had  twelve 
hundred  of  our  most  pious  and  self-righteous  newspapers  being  made  the 
dupes  of  an  official  propagandist. 

My  interest  in  the  Mexican  situation  led  to  some  inquiries  which  re- 
vealed the  fact  that  Joseph  De  Courcy,  correspondent  of  the  New  York 
Times  in  Mexico  City,  until  he  was  expelled  by  the  Mexican  Government, 
got  a salary  of  $60  a week.  I say  that  in  no  special  derogation  of  the 
Times,  because  I was  informed  that  other  correspondents  in  Mexico  City 
got  no  more.  As  a matter  of  routine,  a formality,  (for  I had  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  accuracy  and  the  credibility  of  my  information)  I asked  the 
acting  managing  editor  of  the  New  York  Titties  about  this,  and  was  told 
that  the  salaries  paid  to  correspondents  were  “private  matters  concerning 
only  ourselves  and  themselves.”  In  my  opinion,  wages,  wherever  paid 
or  to  whomever  paid,  are  a matter  of  public  concern.  And  when  wages 
are  being  paid  by  a public  utility  like  a newspaper,  every  action  of  which 
is  charged  in  the  profoundest  sense  with  public  use,  they  become  doubly 
important. 

The  Senate  investigation  revealed  that  there  was  a market  for  forged 
documents  in  Mexico  City,  and  that  correspondents,  more  than  one  of 
them,  supplemented  their  income  by  trading  in  these  documents,  or,  so 
far  as  we  know,  in  manufacturing  them.  Is  the  responsibility  of  the  press 
a responsibility  to  pay  a living  wage  to  a Mexico  City  correspondent  with 
a family  of  five  children? 

I offer  that  to  you  as  a question.  We  are  having  nowadays  twice  as 
much  foreign  news  as  we  had  before  the  World  War,  and  we  are  con- 
tinually being  told  that  news  is  a panacea  for  disharmony  between  na- 
tions. The  theory  is  that  that  prince  of  humorists,  Charles  Lamb,  was 
right  when  he  said  that  he  couldn’t  know  a man  and  hate  him;  and 
therefore  that  a nation  knowing  another  nation  could  not  hate  it.  Well, 
Charles  Lamb  may  have  been  right  and  it  may  be  that  you  can  multiply 
his  statement  on  a subliminal  scale.  But  he  had  in  view  a knowledge  as 

16 


man  to  man,  not  a third-hand  knowledge  through  a press  governed,  ir- 
revocably, it  would  appear,  by  news  stereotypes  which  put  a premium  on 
violence,  hate  and  controversy. 

Mr.  Koenigsberg  made  quite  clear  to  you,  and  Mr.  Abbot  will  admit, 
that  the  first  responsibility  of  the  press  is  to  pay  dividends.  The  first  re- 
sponsibility of  this  privately  operated  industry  is  to  pay  its  way.  Other- 
wise it  becomes  venal.  We  live  under  a government  by  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  and  the  manufacture  of  consent  is  in  the  private  hands  of 
an  industry  conducted  for  revenue  only.  Revenue  arises  from  the  mass 
sale  of  the  paper,  and  the  sale  of  the  paper  arises  from  appealing  to  the 
fourteen-year-old  mind.  We  do  not  have  circulations  of  three  and  four 
and  five  hundred  thousand  by  printing  papers  which  are  edited  for  in- 
telligent human  beings. 

The  average  mind  in  this  country  has  been  defined  by  psychologists  as 
a fourteen-year-old  mind,  and  the  psychologists  tell  us  that  this  is  a super- 
stitious, credulous,  conventional  mind.  We  live  in  a civilization  where 
machines  have  contributed  to  a general  monotony ; and  the  newspaper 
undertakes  to  relieve  that  monotony  by  supplying  us  at  two  cents  or  three 
cents  with  thrills  and  with  what  is  now  known  as  “escape”  literature. 
News  of  war  and  conflict  is  “escape”  literature  if  we  get  it  sitting  here  in 
security  or  at  our  homes  or  even  amid  the  insecurity  of  the  subway  rush. 
News  of  the  execution  of  a corset  salesman’s  paramour  afforded  an  ex- 
ample of  good  selling  stuff;  it  is  good  whether  domestic  or  foreign, 
whether  an  electrocution  or  the  threatened  beheading  of  an  American 
marine  by  Sandino. 

It  so  happened  that  on  the  night  before  Mrs.  Snyder  was  to  be  exe- 
cuted her  lawyers  obtained  a stay  of  execution  (an  abortive  stay)  from 
a New  York  Court.  Almost  at  the  same  hour,  a little  after  nine  o’clock, 
Thomas  Hardy  died.  The  Herald  Tribune  was  the  only  morning  news- 
paper in  this  town  which  gave  as  much  space  to  Thomas  Hardy — it  gave 
more  as  a matter  of  fact — than  to  a prospective  hour  of  grace  for  a felon 
in  Sing  Sing.  Its  nearest  competitor,  the  New  York  Times,  thought  Hardy 
only  half  as  important  as  Mrs.  Snyder.  This  Snyder  case  was  well  enough 
known  to  us.  It  had  been  running  like  a sewer  through  the  newspapers 
for  ten  months. 

I do  not  want  you  to  think  that  the  owners  and  editors  of  daily  news- 
papers wear  horns.  They  are  honest  and  conscientious  men  according 
to  their  lights,  but  they  work  under  fiercely  competitive  conditions.  This 
explains  why  they  gave  greater  display  to  the  Snyder  story  than  to  Thomas 
Hardy’s  death.  Suspense  was  aroused  by  the  Snyder  situation.  Some- 
one has  said  that  suspense  is  the  only  literary  tool  which  is  effective  on 
tyrants  and  savages ; and  since  in  this  country  we  are  assumed  to  have 
no  tyrants,  it  appears  that  the  Snyder  story  was  printed  for  its  effect  on 
savages. 

That,  my  friends,  is  the  situation.  I put  it  up  to  you  with  this  question : 
Shall  we  throw  aside  the  freedom  of  the  press,  which  has  been  regarded 
as  the  inevitable  and  necessary  adjunct  to  democratic  processes?  We  see 
very  clearly  that  the  press  uses  its  freedom  to  debauch  its  readers,  and  not 
to  champion  unpopular  causes,  nor  to  further  social  and  international  well- 

17 


being.  The  question  ahead  of  you  is  whether  there  shall  be  a deliberate 
censorship. 

The  Chairman:  I just  spoke  to  Mr.  Koenigsberg  a moment  ago,  and 
suggested  to  him  that  in  view  of  the  fact,  though  I may  be  mistaken,  that 
he  and  Mr.  Bent  do  not  see  eye-to-eye  one  hundred  per  cent  in  reference 
to  the  responsibility  of  the  press,  and,  also,  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  if  Mr. 
Abbot  took  one  side  or  the  other,  he  inclined  toward  Mr.  Bent’s  point  of 
view,  that,  if  Mr.  Koenigsberg  would  be  good  enough  to  reply  to  Mr.  Bent 
in  about  five  minutes,  we  should  welcome  it  before  the  question  period. 

Mr.  Koenigsberg:  I have  labored  under  the  impression  for  years 

that  morals  are  determined  by  geography  and  time.  Today,  they  seem 
to  be  largely  affected  by  personality.  I accept  Mr.  Bent’s  challenge  that 
I represent  a pagan  point  of  view,  and  answer  that,  if  his  appraisal  of  the 
responsibility  of  newspapers  is  to  be  fixed  by  his  ethical  standards,  I yield 
them  to  him  one  hundred  per  cent. 

I cannot  find  anything  moral  or  ethical  in  the  assumption  or  the  arroga- 
tion  of  the  right  to  think  for  others.  However,  we  have  come  to  such 
a sharp  conflict  on  ethical  standards  that  I perhaps  can  illustrate  my  feel- 
ing about  Mr.  Bent’s  views  with  a story  that  I hope  too  many  of  you  have 
not  heard. 

A New  York  merchant,  eager  to  assist  in  the  education  of  his  son, 
asked  the  young  hopeful  to  bring  to  him  any  question  about  which  he  had 
any  doubt.  One  day  the  boy  said,  “Father,  what  does  ‘ethics’  mean?” 

“I  will  tell  you,  son,”  he  said.  “Suppose  there  comes  into  my  store  to- 
morrow a customer  who  buys  a bill  of  goods  amounting  to  $20,  and  I at- 
tend to  him  personally,  and  he  gives  me  the  money.  I walk  back  to  the 
cashier’s  desk,  and  on  the  way  I discover  that,  instead  of  a $20  bill,  he  has 
given  me  two  $20  bills.  Now,  my  son,  there  comes  a question  in  ethics: 
Should  I tell  my  partner  or  not?” 

I should  like  again  to  submit  to  this  jury,  present  and  on  the  air,  whether 
there  is  any  immorality  in  a profession  that  moves  responsive  at  all  times 
to  the  commandment  I quoted  a few  moments  ago,  “Thou  shalt  be  every- 
where and  always  the  champion  of  the  right  and  the  good  against  evil 
and  injustice.” 

Who  is  to  determine  the  evil  and  the  injustice,  or  the  good  and  the 
right  of  any  view  which  Mr.  Bent  or  any  of  his  associates  may  have  on 
any  social  or  political  program?  Are  they  alone  to  determine  that  right, 
and  are  all  things  opposed  to  that  program  immoral  ? Or  are  those  people 
who  attempt  to  put  their  programs  upon  others  immoral  and  unethical? 

I do  not  claim  for  the  press  anything  except  a duty  which  it  must  dis- 
charge, and  when  it  is  recreant  to  that  duty,  I think  it  is  an  immoral  pro- 
fession. 

I challenge  Mr.  Bent’s  accuracy  not  only  in  statements  of  fact  but  in 
conclusions.  Mr.  Bent  assured  you  that  the  salary  of  Mr.  De  Courcy  in 
Mexico  was  $60  a week.  I think  he  wants  to  be  fair  as  far  as  his  lights 
go,  but  I do  not  think  that  he  should  have  said  to  you  that  the  man’s 

18 


salary  was  $60  a week  without  inquiring  whether  he  had  other  sources 
of  income.  I happen  to  know  that  Mr.  De  Courcy  was  an  American 
resident  in  Mexico  City,  on  part  pay  from  the  New  York  Times,  de- 
riving an  income  from  other  sources,  and  I also  happen  to  know  from 
personal  knowledge,  not  from  hearsay,  that  Mr.  Bent  was  wholly  mis- 
taken when  he  said  that  no  other  Mexico  City  correspondent  got  any 
more,  because  I personally  have  approved  the  payroll  checks  for  others 
who  received  twice  as  much  as  that  so-called  salary  of  $60  a week. 

I do  not  believe  that  any  man  who  is  familiar  with  the  newspaper  busi- 
ness, and  I want  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  description — any  man  who  is 
familiar  with  the  newspaper  business — will  fail  to  tell  you  that  the  rewards 
for  newspaper  effort  are  higher  than  any  other  calling  to  which  a man 
may  enter  with  so  little  preparation  or  with  so  much  preparation,  as  the 
case  may  be.  The  immediate  returns  are  higher  and  the  average  payments 
are  higher  for  individual  effort. 

One  other  thing  that  I should  like  to  answer  in  conclusion ! Gentlemen 
who  share  Mr.  Bent’s  ethical  outlook  and  moral  standards  are  much 
chagrined  that  newspapers  should  pay  so  much  attention  to  the  execution 
of  Ruth  Snyder.  I think  the  history  of  our  social  development  indicates 
clearly  that  crime  was  never  so  rampant  and  never  so  prosperous  as  when 
there  was  no  publicity  attendant  upon  the  transactions  of  the  criminals. 

(Audience  expressed  disapproval.) 

I am  glad  to  have  your  dissent,  because  apparently  all  of  you  have 
lived  longer  than  I have. 

I still  reserve  for  myself  belief  in  the  things  that  are  reported  by  the 
people  who  did  live  when  I did  not  live.  I would  say,  however,  that  Mr. 
Bent  may  have  overlooked  a great  interest  attending  one  of  the  dramatic 
phases  of  the  execution  of  Ruth  Snyder.  He  may  have  overlooked  the 
fact  that  the  conversion  of  a sinner  to  God  is  a very  important  news  item. 

The  Chairman:  I have  asked  Mr.  Abbot  if  he  will  not  reply,  also,  to 
Mr.  Bent  or  to  Mr.  Koenigsberg  in  five  minutes.  That  will  leave  us  twenty 
minutes  for  questions  and  answers  before  the  closing  time. 

Mr.  Abbot  : I have  not  the  slightest  expectation  that  I can  convert  Mr. 
Koenigsberg  in  the  five  minutes  that  I have  to  talk.  I notice  the  unction 
with  which  he  described  my  retirement  from  journalism  and  I plead  guilty 
to  having  been  retired  for  eight  or  ten  years  from  the  type  of  journalism 
which  he  so  worthily  represents,  a type  which  I quite  well  understood  in 
the  earlier  period. 

I would  like  also  to  call  attention  to  a recent  illustration  of  that  type 
of  journalism  for  which  I think  my  friend,  Mr.  Koenigsberg, — for  we 
have  been  friends  for  many  years — is  not  wholly  without  some  individual 
responsibility.  I have  been  pleading  here  for  a sense  of  proportion  in 
news,  namely,  that  the  stress  should  not  be  laid  in  international  corres- 
pondence upon  those  things  which  prove  to  be  irritating  or  provocative. 
I think  a sense  of  proportion  is  vital,  is  essential,  to  proper  editing  of  a 
newspaper  or  of  a news  report.  Mr.  Koenigsberg  and  I discussed  this 

19 


question  amicably  before  an  audience  something  like  this  in  Boston,  two 
or  perhaps  three  weeks  ago,  and  some  reports  were  sent  out  through  the 
press.  Judging  from  the  news  clippings  that  came  into  my  office,  the 
reports  that  went  out  from  Mr.  Koenigsberg’s  justly  celebrated  news 
agencies  were  more  full,  more  comprehensive  than  those  sent  out  by  either 
the  United  or  Associated  Press.  I received  one  or  two  clippings  which 
were  about  that  long,  we  will  say,  (indicating  two  and  one-half  feet) 
and  they  set  forth  Mr.  Koenigsberg’s  remarks  on  the  present  morality 
of  newspapers  at  about  that  length.  They  gave  Mr.  Bruce  Bliven  about 
that  much  (indicating  about  six  inches)  ; they  gave  Mr.  Abbot  of  the 
Christian  Science  Monitor  an  amount  which  I cannot  get  my  fingers  near 
enough  to  show  you. 

They  further  went  on  to  say  that  Mr.  Abbot  of  the  Christian  Science 
Monitor  said,  and  this  was  all  they  credited  me  with  saying,  that  the  for- 
eign correspondents  of  the  American  newspapers  were  not  suitably 
equipped  to  fulfill  their  duties,  which  was  not  at  all  what  I said  then  nor 
what  I say  now. 

I think  you  know  what  I have  been  trying  to  say.  But  in  summing  what 
I have  said,  I want  to  make  this  assertion : That  the  recent  conference  for 
the  limitation  of  naval  armament  in  Geneva  was  so  handled  by  the  press 
of  the  United  States  that  very,  very  few  of  our  people  over  here  under- 
stand the  rightfulness,  the  proportion  of  rightfulness,  of  the  English  po- 
sition in  that  conference;  and,  in  the  same  way,  it  was  so  handled  by  the 
English  press  that  very  few  English  readers  of  newspapers  understand 
the  value  and  virtue  and  truth  in  the  American  contention.  The  people 
of  both  countries  were  misled.  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  systemati- 
cally done,  or  whether  it  was  because  the  correspondents  got  into  the 
hands  of  propagandists,  but  the  people  of  both  countries  were  so  thor- 
oughly misled  that  in  neither  country  today  is  there  any  widespread  un- 
derstanding of  the  value  or  the  merit  of  the  position  assumed  by  the  other 
country.  We  all  know  that  as  a result  of  this  conference,  as  a result  of 
the  lamentable  failure  of  this  conference,  there  exists  today  a feeling  of 
distrust,  of  uncertainty  and  of  nascent  hostility  between  the  two  peoples 
that  is  a menace  which  properly  deserves  the  attention  of  the  right-thinking 
people  of  both  nations. 

That  was  one  of  the  great  illustrations,  one  of  the  most  notable  illustra- 
tions in  a big  way,  of  the  dangers  that  may  result  from  ill-considered  in- 
ternational correspondence  and  from  lack  of  a sense  of  responsibility  for 
the  character  of  news  transmitted.  But  I do  wish  to  lay  emphasis  again 
upon  my  contention  that  it  is  not  these  great  things, — not  the  accuracy  or 
the  spirit  in  which  a disarmament  conference,  a Pan-American  conference 
or  a treaty  conference,  not  wholly  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  reported, — 
but  the  steady  attitude,  week  after  week,  day  after  day,  year  after  year, 
of  the  correspondents  in  one  nation  in  sending  out  all  sorts  of  material 
which  is  discreditable  to,  and  which  creates  antagonism  and  hostility  to 
the  people  of  the  nation  to  which  they  are  accredited.  That  is  the  thing 
which  should  be  corrected  in  our  press  and  can  be  readily  and  easily  cor- 
rected, and  it  is  no  more  an  indictment  to  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Ameri- 

20 


can  correspondents  than  it  is  at  the  door  of  the  English  and  such  few  Con- 
tinental papers  as  maintain  correspondents  in  the  United  States. 

I thank  you ! 

The  Chairman:  Now  we  have  eighteen  or  twenty  minutes  left  for 

questions  and  discussion.  I have  one  or  two  written  questions,  but  I 
would  rather  have  some  spoken  questions,  if  the  speakers  will  remember 
that,  because  of  the  broadcasting  arrangements,  the  questions  must  be  re- 
peated, and,  therefore,  must  be  brief. 

Mr.  Jones  : I want  to  ask  Mr.  Koenigsberg  a question.  He  said,  I 

think,  that  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  international  news  was  not  pub- 
lished. On  what  basis  is  the  selection  made  of  the  twenty-five  per  cent 
of  the  news  that  is  published. 

Mr.  Koenigsberg  : On  that  standard  of  news  value  which  at  all  times 
guides  newspaper  editors.  All  news  is  relative  in  value.  A great  story 
which  might  be  worth  a page  at  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning  may  be  worth 
only  half  a column  at  six  o’clock  at  night.  Therefore,  the  standards  of 
news  value  embrace  a series  of  formulae  that  it  would  be  absolutely  im- 
possible to  explain  to  a layman  at  this  meeting. 

Mr.  C.  Crowell  : I want  to  address  a question  concerning  a practi- 

cal problem  in  the  handling  and  distributing  of  foreign  news  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  responsibility  that  we  are  discussing  here  today.  Mr.  Koenigs- 
berg made  the  point,  and  it  is  a very  accurate  and  very  good  one,  that  we 
exchange  our  news  without  censorship  for  a very  large  amount  of  cen- 
sored foreign  news.  The  extent  of  censorship  in  Europe  and  almost  any 
part  of  the  world  in  time  of  peace  is  astounding,  and  the  average  reader 
is  not  continuously  informed  as  to  where  these  censorships  are  or  are 
not.  They  come  on  and  they  go  off,  mysteriously,  not  because  of  war 
but  because  of  some  internal  problem.  Now  it  was  my  thought  that  when- 
ever an  American  newspaper  or  news  service  prints  a dispatch  from  a 
country  that  maintains  a censorship,  that  that  statement  should  be  made  at 
the  head  of  the  dispatch,  and  that  it  might  even  be  fair  to  go  to  the  extent 
of  explaining,  at  some  point  near  the  editorial  column,  the  nature  of  these 
various  censorships.  I believe  that  it  is  of  extreme  importance,  on  account 
of  the  growing  strength  of  this  country  in  world  affairs,  that  our  people 
should  be  continuously  advised  on  the  purity  of  the  sources  of  their  foreign 
news. 

I make  this  as  a statement.  I wish  the  Chairman  to  translate  it  in  terms 
of  a question,  and  ask  one  of  the  speakers  if  he  would  not  like  to  com- 
ment on  the  justice  of  having  every  censored  dispatch  handled  by  a news- 
paper or  news  service  in  this  country  so  labeled.  Personally,  I would  label 
each  “Damaged  Goods.” 

The  Chairman:  We  have  at  the  guest  table  Mr.  Frederick  Roy 

Martin,  formerly  the  manager  of  the  Associated  Press.  Mr.  Martin,  what 
would  you  say  in  answer  to  Mr.  Crowell’s  question  ? 

Mr.  Frederick  Roy  Martin  : First,  let  me  say  that  I have  not  the 

slightest  responsibility  in  this  subject. 

21 


The  Chairman:  I admit  that. 

Mr.  Martin  : Nor  have  I for  two  years  or  more.  It  is  delightful  to 
be  today  with  John  Gavit  and  Hendrick  Van  Loon,  who  used  to  have 
some,  and  hear  this  debate.  I can  simply  answer  that  I have  in  previous 
years,  particularly  during  the  World  War,  struggled  with  countries  where 
there  were  censorships  and  I have  sometimes  taken  out  correspondents  and 
I have  sometimes  permitted  them  to  remain.  The  suggestion  that  Mr. 
Crowell  made  is  perfectly  impracticable.  You  would  have  no  corres- 
pondent in  Italy  or  in  Russia  if  you  labeled  your  dispatches  as  he  sug- 
gests. In  those  conditions  you  can  simply  choose  whether  you  prefer  to 
have  a correspondent  with  a censor  or  not. 

The  Chairman  : Does  someone  else  at  the  guest  table  have  a different 
view  as  to  the  practicability  of  Mr.  Crowell’s  suggestion  about  labeling  as 
such  news  which  is  more  or  less  censored?  Mr.  Bent,  have  you  a different 
view  from  Mr.  Martin’s? 

Mr.  Silas  Bent:  I do  not  think  it  necessarily  true  that  all  the  govern- 
ments which  censor  news — and  all  of  the  Continental  governments  do  it, 
I believe,  to  some  extent — would  expel  correspondents.  I am  told  that 
Russia  exercises  a very  slight  censorship  over  outgoing  news  now,  in  spite 
of  the  very  severe  censorship  within  Russia.  The  illustration  which 
comes  to  my  mind  concerns  a correspondent  who  sent  a story  containing 
the  phrase  “red  terror,”  and  the  censor  called  him  up  and  asked  him  if 
he  would  mind  letting  him  put  that  phrase  into  quotation  marks.  I doubt 
whether  Mussolini  would  expel  our  correspondents.  I think  he  has 
better  sense.  But  you  have  this  difficulty,  my  friends,  that  many  dis- 
patches now  come  through  not  only  without  censorship,  but  without  actual 
delay  or  mutilation.  The  receiving  newspaper  does  not  know,  it  has  no 
way  of  knowing,  whether  a dispatch  has  been  tampered  with,  and  so  you 
throw  all  dispatches  under  the  same  stigma  which,  after  all,  does  not  ac- 
complish a great  deal. 

Question:  I should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Bent,  apropos  of  the  matter  of 

censorship,  if  he  does  not  think  that  would  be  more  dangerous  than  the 
value  we  might  gain  from  it? 

The  Chairman:  The  question  is  addressed  to  Mr.  Bent.  May  I ask 
the  Questioner,  however,  if  he  means  in  reference  to  the  last  point  Mr. 
Bent  made  ? 

Questioner  : No. 

Mr.  Bent:  Censorship  is  repugnant  to  all  of  us.  All  of  us  know, 

either  instinctively  or  by  a process  of  reason,  that  censorships  threaten 
tyranny.  The  question  is  whether  the  sort  of  tyranny  that  is  threatened 
is  worse  than  the  tyranny  we  have.  I am  very  much  inclined  to  think  we 
are  worse  off  on  account  of  the  wider-spread  publicity  regarding  foreign 
affairs.  We  do  not  know  about  it.  It  is  amazing  how  little  we  know  about 
our  newspapers.  One  of  our  rich  and  idle  foundations  might  well  devote 

22 


some  of  its  money  and  its  time  to  a study  of  this  institution,  certainly  as 
powerful  and  as  important  as  either  the  Church  or  the  State,  both  of  which 
are  under  constant  and  searching  scrutiny.  Unless  we  have  such  a sur- 
vey, an  experiment  at  censorship  seems  to  be  a way  out. 

The  Chairman:  Mr.  Felix  Valyi,  founder  and  editor-in-chief  of  the 
Review  of  Nations,  has  asked  permission  to  ask  a question,  and  I said  I 
would  be  glad  if  he  did  so  within  one  minute  as  measured  by  my  watch. 

Mr.  Valyi:  May  I ask  Mr.  McDonald  to  sum  up  the  discussion  and 
to  define  the  real  interest  in  foreign  relations  from  the  point  of  view  of 
American  mentality? 

The  Chairman:  You  may  not  ask  the  Chairman  to  do  anything. 

Mr.  Valyi:  Is  it  the  murder  of  a king,  or  a ruling  statesman,  or  is  it 
the  destiny  of  a nation,  the  destiny  of  mankind  which  concerns  America? 
We  outside  of  America,  we  Europeans — and  I may  add,  we  Asiatics — 
do  not  understand  how  it  is  possible  that  a murderer  gets  two  or  three 
columns  while  a great  scientific  invention,  or  a great  scholar,  gets  just  a 
few  words.  A murderer  of  a nation,  Miss  Katherine  Mayo,  gets  thousands 
of  words,  while  Sir  Charles  Eliot,  Ex-Ambassador  of  England  in  Japan, 
the  author  of  the  best  English  book  on  Hinduism  and  Buddhism,  is  almost 
unknown  in  America. 

The  Chairman  : The  questioner  did  not  say  so,  but  I suspect  that  was 
a rhetorical  question.  Does  anyone  wish  to  answer  it? 

We  have  five  minutes  still. 

Mr.  Fleischer  : I presume  we  may  take  for  granted  that  in  the  present 
state  of  evolution  of  the  newspaper  business  it  is  still  a private  enterprise 
and  that  each  newspaper  proprietor,  as  Mr.  Bent  indicated,  wants  to  pay 
himself  and  his  corporation  dividends.  I presume  we  may  also  take  for 
granted  that  these  newspaper  owners  do  not  aim  at  capturing  all  of  public 
opinion;  that  each  one  of  them  hopes  to  appeal  to  only  a type  of  public 
opinion,  to  one  element  of  the  public.  I should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Koenigs- 
berg  or  Mr.  Abbot  whether,  in  the  selection  of  news  which  each  of  them 
suggested  occurs, — despite  the  fact  that  one  claims  to  be  moralistic  and  the 
other  admits  that  he  is  pagan — they  are  not  really  guided  by  an  appeal  to 
that  definite  element  of  public  opinion  which  is  going  to  be  the  means  of 
making  their  newspaper  enterprise  pay? 

Mr.  Koenigsberg  : I thought  I had  made  very  clear  that  a newspaper 
tries  to  serve  its  public,  and  if  it  tries  to  serve  its  public,  I do  not  under- 
stand by  what  standards  it  could  attempt  to  serve  only  part  of  its  public. 
No  newspaper  can  be  influential  or  powerful  unless  it  is  successful.  I 
gather  here  today  that  some  gentlemen  believe  that  a newspaper  could  be 
powerful,  and  yet  not  have  any  circulation  or  be  successful.  Really  I am 
in  a maze;  I do  not  understand  the  newspaper  business  any  more  if  the 
views  that  are  so  roundly  applauded  today  are  to  prevail.  I believe  that 
a newspaper  seeks  to  do  its  task  honestly  and  to  do  its  task  honestly  it 
must  serve  its  entire  public,  as  much  of  the  public  as  it  can  prevail  upon  to 

23 


read  the  newspaper.  I would  not  understand  how  to  go  about  selecting 
news  for  a part  of  the  public.  Maybe  Mr.  Bent  would. 

The  Chairman  : Mr.  Abbot  is  asked  the  same  question. 

Mr.  Abbot  : I would  answer  the  gentleman  by  saying,  “Mainly,  yes.” 
I am  perfectly  willing  to  leave  to  Mr.  Koenigsberg  the  greater  part  of  the 
public  to  which  he  appeals.  I am  perfectly  willing  to  confess  that  the 
Christian  Science  Monitor  endeavors  to  appeal  to  an  intelligent,  a pro- 
gressive, a patriotic,  a law-abiding  and  home-keeping  public.  I am  also 
perfectly  certain  that  it  is  so  edited  that  we  are  continually  extending  that 
public  by  a process  of  education.  I think  that  at  points  we  even  lop  over 
into  some  of  Mr.  Koenigsberg’s  preserves  and  take  some  of  his  people 
away  from  him.  But  more  than  that,  I wish  to  answer  his  statement,  his 
satirical  reference  to  the  influence  of  papers  with  no  circulation.  Possibly 
he  has  heard  of  the  Springfield  Republican.  Years  ago  that  paper,  pub- 
lished in  a little  provincial  town  in  New  England,  exerted  more  influence 
than  possibly  any  New  York  paper  of  its  time.  I think  we  will  admit  that 
the  New  York  Evening  'Post,  at  a time  when  its  circulation  was  not  as 
great  as  it  is  now  and  when  it  did  not  compare  with  the  yellows  of  today, 
exerted  an  enormous  influence.  Circulation  has  its  value  as  a point  of 
influence,  unquestionably,  but  the  sincerity  and  honesty  of  purpose  and 
the  intelligence  of  presentation  and  comment  on  the  news  will  ultimately 
give  a newspaper  a world-wide  influence  even  though  its  circulation  may 
not  be  the  mass  circulation  obtained  by  sensational  reporting  of  crimes 
and  prize  fights  and  news  matters  of  that  character. 

Question  : Mr.  Bent  has  stated  that  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  State, 
Mr.  Olds,  in  speaking  to  three  members  of  the  press,  issued  to  them  what 
he  considered  was  propaganda.  I should  like  to  ask  him  if  he  has  any 
notion  what  prompted  that  piece  of  propaganda,  and  if  most  of  the  news- 
paper expressions  of  foreign  relationships  are  not  prompted  by  propa- 
ganda? Is  not  that  the  basic  question,  and  are  we  not  indulging  in  a 
dialectic  discussion? 

Mr.  Bent  : Of  course  that  was  propaganda.  I think  I called  it  propa- 
ganda when  I spoke  of  it.  As  to  the  motives  behind  it, — I am  not  in  the 
confidence  of  the  Department  of  State,  but  I will  say  to  you  that  this 
propaganda,  (or  statement  of  fact,  if  it  was  that),  was  given  out  before 
the  Mexican  Supreme  Court  declared  invalid  a clause  of  the  1927  Con- 
stitution, which  this  country  and  our  State  Department  regard  as  con- 
fiscatory of  American  rights.  That  was  a clause  which  our  oil  and  mine 
concessionaires  very  bitterly  resented,  Hearst  among  them.  The  Mexican 
Supreme  Court,  after  Mr.  Olds  gave  out  that  statement,  declared  that 
the  clause  was  invalid. 

It  is  not  true,  as  I understand  the  word  “propaganda,”  that  all  news  is 
propaganda.  It  seems  to  me  that  propaganda  is  an  attempt  to  convert  some- 
one else  to  your  opinion  or,  through  suggestion,  to  alter  another’s  opinion 
favorably  to  a special  interest.  News  need  not  be  propaganda. 


24 


